I understand the advantages of both stabilization systems--I have shot them both. I prefer in-body stabilization. Lenses are cheaper, smaller and always stabilized. Primes and oldies!! But it's not so black and white. While I find myself getting annoyed that I don't get 4 stops of stabilization out of an expensive 70-200, it's offset by shooting an 85 1.4 with 2/3 stops of stabilization. Ultimately, agree with Mansurov:

"After looking at all pros and cons of each image stabilization technology, it is clear that one cannot be completely replaced with another as of yet. While I personally favor in-camera stabilization because it works with all lenses (in addition to a number of other advantages), I cannot ignore its biggest disadvantage, which is its practical use on long telephoto/super telephoto lenses."

"The bad news is that I do not see Canon or Nikon jumping on in-camera stabilization anytime soon, even with their mirrorless cameras like Nikon 1 V1. Why? Because they enjoy their profits every time a lens is updated."